Here is the article written by Ralph Peters:
AL Qaeda does one thing ex tremely well: killing Muslims. Between 2006 and 2008, only 2 percent of the terror multinational's victims were Westerners.
The rest were citizens of Muslim countries. Even as al Qaeda claims to be their defender.
I've long complained that we fail to capitalize on al Qaeda's blood thirst in our information operations. Al Qaeda (as well as the Taliban and other insurgent groups) slaughters Muslims -- yet we let the media flip the blame to us.
Last weekend, a Pentagon insider passed me a no-nonsense study recently released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. "Deadly Vanguards: A Study of al Qaeda's Violence Against Muslims" is exactly the kind of work our analysts should produce -- but rarely do.
Using exclusively Arabic-language media reports and including only those incidents for which al Qaeda proudly claimed responsibility, this scrupulously documented study explodes the myth of al Qaeda as a champion of Muslims:
* Between 2004 and 2008, only 15 percent of al Qaeda's victims were Westerners, and that number skewed upward because of the Madrid and London attacks.
* Between 2006 and 2008, a non-Westerner was 54 times likelier to die in an al Qaeda attack than a Westerner.
* "Outside of the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, 99 percent of al Qaeda's victims were non-Western in 2007 and 96 percent were non-Western in 2008."
Bravo to Scott Helfstein, Nassir Abdullah and Muhammad al-Obaidi for producing this supremely useful report. Now the question is: Will we use it?
The propaganda skills of our enemies eclipse our timid, lawyer-ridden information operations. In the Muslim world, we get blamed even for al Qaeda's proudest massacres of Muslims -- while Pakistanis blame us for Taliban suicide bombings.
As this report documents, we possess facts that could be wielded as weapons. But we're no more willing to fight an aggressive information war than we are to wage a serious ground war against our enemies.
Personally, I was astonished -- and delighted -- that this hard-headed report came out of West Point, the most politically correct major institution in the US Army, now dedicated to the proposition that killing our nation's enemies is so yesterday. Is there new hope for the stumbling Long Gray Line?
Back to al Qaeda: Our porcine intelligence system doesn't bother to ask the basic question of why al Qaeda kills Muslims so avidly. (Even conservative Muslim scholars are questioning al Qaeda's practices.)
The answer's as clear as a sunny day in the desert: Al Qaeda fully reflects its Saudi parentage. Neither the Saudis nor al Qaeda cares a whit about individual Muslims. They only care about Islam.
I've seen, in country after country, how the Saudis sacrifice the well-being and human potential of countless Muslims in order to prevent them from integrating into local societies and to promote the dour Wahhabi cult that has deformed Islam so horribly: purity matters, people don't.
Likewise, al Qaeda is happy to sacrifice any number of Muslims to promote its neo-Wahhabi death cult. The al Qaeda serpent may have turned on the Saudi royals, but their differences are a matter of degree.
Meanwhile, we imagine that our passivity and "tolerance" are virtues. We fail to capitalize on al Qaeda's horrendous record, while our government protects the Saudi-funded extremists who poison American mosques.
(Our leaders blather about "freedom of religion," ignoring the fact that there's no freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. Can't we prohibit religious funding from states that don't themselves exercise tolerance? We're being idiotic, not virtuous.)
We continue to hear endless nonsense from Washington about how "soft power" is so much more effective than military force. OK, show us. Three good men at West Point have given us a powerful information weapon against al Qaeda.
Will our leaders have the sense to use it?
Here is the Report
H/T to Washington Post
45 comments:
You make many valid point in this post Teresa. I will comment only on one. The left and the military. There was a time and I remember it well when the city by the Bay welcomed U.S. servicemen. I was there in 1959, and found the people warm and friendly as I took in the sights and sounds of the city while in uniform. During Vietnam and following years thing changed. My best friend came back into this country under that great Golden Gate and was not welcomed as the hero which he was, a decorated army ranger with medals and two purple hearts, but as a war criminal who was spat on and taunted by the crowds at the docks and the bus stations in that now god-forsaken city.
Todays progressive, hates the military and everything it stands for. They hate America as it exist today. They don't understand the land of our fathers and reach out for something that just doesn't exist. Honestly Teresa they live in some kind of smokey Utopian world unto themselves.
How do we get liberals to fight?
How do you get limp wristed milk-toast linguini spined men to fight for ANYTHING?
Will they use the information? If they say they will, you know they won't. I just can't trust this government to do anything right now. It's so big, bloated and unable to function due to it's size. I hope the intelligence agencies have the…intelligence… to use it. Great article and commentary Teresa
Great post Teresa.
Being a non-interventionist myself, I understand the reasons for disliking our foreign policy but, that being said I also believe that once you do use force or are engaged in a conflict, you use every means at your disposal to defeat the enemy not win their hearts and minds. Al Qaeda and the rest of the Islamists do not respect us because our leaders act weak by trying to win popular opinion instead of the war.
Sun Tzu provides a blueprint for how to defeat your enemies but sadly for the last 60 years we have failed to heed his wisdom while our enemies have used it to their advantage.
Good article being that this is now documented,but this has generally benn known for some time. The most blatant example was in Jordan when a suicide bomber took out a wedding reception,a muslim wedding reception.
This info, used or not will not in any way prove useful against people who are bent on killing for killings sake.
If I were President (no, i do not want the job) I would take the chains off of our troops and tell them to engage any and all enemies with any and all weapons available immediately without prejudice. KILL THEM UPON SIGHT.
No investigation, no miranda rights, complete and very uncomfortable interrogations if the terrorists are alive and captured and 6-month on 6-month off deployment.
This serves many purposes but mainly two important ones; Mental stability for our troops and a HUGE RECRUITING TOOL.
Ron,
The way our soldiers were treated both during and following Vietnam is despicable. These soldiers deserve to be honored. You are exactly right about the left living in some type of utopian world amongst themselves.
Eman,
I do hope they use it and pass the information to as many people as possible. But, with this government ssemingly promoting an anti-military agaenda, I doubt it.
Chris,
Your right. These Islamic extremists do not respect weakness. They are taking advantage of this current administration. I just learned that many people think that up until recently our government was non-interventionist with relation to foreign affairs, but that isn't true. I do want to read Sun Tzu's Art of War.
Wow, Interesting report, Teresa. If it has anything to do with furthering obummers and the libs agenda, they WILL NOT publicize this. The MSM is so in bed with them all, they should get a mint on the pillow every morning. I hope you have a nice weekend.
When are they going to take Jane Fonda out of mothballs? Admittedly, "Qandahar Jane" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but I'm sure it's coming...
This administration's failure to go after and destroy the enemy is unconcionable...
The UN is already trying to stop the use of unmanned drones... What is their view on nukes?
brilliant piece but wasted on the libs hun! Ahhh Happy Sunday my friend!:)
Great post, and great comments here. Our left will never us the information available to them. They do have (at least) one thing in common with the Islamofascists, both destroy or kill individuals for the health of the whole. Both do not see individuals as being of value, so violating the rights, or outright killing, is OK, as long as the collective "system" continues.
Good stuff, Teresa. "Will we use it?" Not as long as SubZero is around.
Chris,
I totally agree.
Amusing Bunni,
I have a feeling the MSM is going to be covering up this report too. Have a great weekend!!
The Born Again American,
It seems that the UN is for our enemy. That's one agency that's worthless and needs to be disbanded. Your right, this administration is unconconsionable.
WomanHonorThyself,
Happy Sunday!!:)
Matt,
These commies and Islamo Fascisists are for the collective. They both believe in screwing the individual's rights.
Teresa, I left a comment about 15 minutes ago. My Firefox crashed just as I hit submit, so I don't know if it is awaiting moderation, or it didn't "take."
This is an interesting report, especially as two of the authors have Middle Eastern names.
If we had no other example, the treatment of their women and children, even the little boys, is inhumane. One cannot have a heart when you treat your wife and children as the followers of Allah do.
Liberals women ignore the plight of Muslim women totally. It used to be a mystery to me, but today I believe it all boils down to the Liberal dislike of Jews and Israel.
I thought the comment about Saudi Arabia caring only for Islam, and nothing for the individual Muslim is spot-on. Allah sanctions murder just as he grants wives. What a great life.
What can we say about a Muslim mother who accepts cash from some warlord to strap her son into a suicide belt - and films his farewell speech of his hate for the infidel, before he walks out the door to detonate? What can we say about the propensity to martyr one's self, believing 72 virgins await your arrival?
In every history of Islam that I have read, in every century, the Muslim killing Muslim is prevalent and applauded. They are barbarians. Nothing changes, even in this century. They will have no peace with Allah guiding them.
In summary, whether it is the media, the government, Hollywood, and even many, many Evangelicals, there is a bias for Islam, because Islam hates Jews.
I really appreciate Ralph Peters' strong voice against jihad. Thankfully someone can say what so many of us think. I'm sure Peters pays a price for his honesty.
Teresa, if this is the second comment you have from me, please delete one of them.
I've added you to my blogroll:-)
Maggie,
I hate when that happens. Computers sure are fickle things. Your right, Allah sure does sanction murder alot. Liberals seem to be very selective with whom they promote freedom for. Thanks for adding me to your blogroll. I will add your blog to mine as well.
Have a great rest of the weekend!!:)
Lest we forget, al Qaeda is not 'Islam'. al Qaeda is an extremist Sunni organization which is led by a man who is considered extremist even by his own family. al Qaeda and the Taliban are in no way indicative of 'Islam'- one is part of it's own little group (I believe bin Laden claims to be a Wahhabi), and the other is part of a Deobandi sect propagated by half-trained 'imams' in Pakistan refugee camps.
"...once you do use force or are engaged in a conflict, you use every means at your disposal to defeat the enemy not win their hearts and minds..."
I just have to respond to this. :P
We are not trying to win our enemies' hearts and minds...we are trying to win the people's hearts and minds.
Do not confuse the two. The 'enemy' is a relatively small group, compared to the civilian population in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And by regarding all of them as mere enemies, we discount one of the best source for information we could have, not to mention quite effective allies. If we didn't just wantonly kill the civilians, we might actually have a snowball's chance in July of winning the 'war on terror'.
Liberty,
If Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization than they are in fact practicing the religion of Islam. Sunni is an branch of Islam. http://hnn.us/articles/934.html
The Taliban do in fact practice Islam and during their control of Afghanistan enforced Shari'a law as well. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html
You may have been misguided by our MSM into thinking that our military is wantonly killing their civilians, but that isn't true. Why do you think the surge was needed? The military were being careful (as much as possible) about not bombing civilians. The report reveals that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda targets Muslim civilians and NOT our military as is shown here as well. The media is anti-military so they are going to exaggerate the number of civilian deaths actually committed by our military. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraqi-politicians-call-on-civilians-to-arm-themselves-456491.html
Besides, there has also been many instances where our enemny has taken the weapon from their comrades who were killed by our forces to make it look like they're civilians when in fact they were not civilians.
I understand that al Qaeda and the Taliban are Muslim. But my point was that they are not indicative of the entirety of Islam. Saying they 'are Islam' is like saying that Fred Phelps is indicative of the entirety of Christianity- which is far from true.
Yes, our military was being careful, I am sure. But we still managed to kill nearly a million of them.
And, in a roundabout way, we caused the deaths of the ones that were killed by the insurgents. Before you jump to hasty conclusions, let me explain.
As I explained on my blog, al Qaeda was in its final days. A couple more years, and al Qaeda would have gone the way of the dinosaur. The Taliban probably wouldn't have been able to hold on much longer either. The Afghan people were getting fed up, and history has proven that they have a stunning ability to fight even against the worst odds.
But our invasion and subsequent occupation caused both organizations to get a new lease on life. People who had been pretty pro-America suddenly switched sides as we destroyed their homes, livliehood, and country. In a twinkling, the Taliban and al Qaeda gained hundreds of new recruits, filled with the most potent and powerful incentive ever; that of their families and homes.
So, we caused these organizations to come back, and because of that, they are able to do what they do.
But do not misunderstand me. I do not blame our soldiers for this. I blame our politicians and their imperialist policies.
"Besides, there has also been many instances where our enemny has taken the weapon from their comrades who were killed by our forces to make it look like they're civilians when in fact they were not civilians."
And this is where we get the "If it's dead, and it's male, and it's Arab, it's an Insurgent."
Do you not realize how horrible that is? We are opening ourselves up to all kinds of atrocities when we take this viewpoint.
@Teresa and Liberty: I hope it is okay for me to make an observation here.
The difference in the argument comparing Fred Phelps and Islam, is that the Christian Bible does not advocate killing unbelievers. The Koran does do that.
I contend that, if you take a city - maybe New York, with a large Muslim population, the overwhelming majority will not advocate for jihad, but if their clerics begin to get on the jihad trail - maybe through pressure, the congregation at that mosque may be pressured to do the same.
When the mandate is given in a local mosque, that they must support their jihadist brother, rather than the freedom and democracy the US offers, they will choose Islam everytime - or certainly most of the time. and if they do choose as directed by their cleric, they must 'disappaer' from that community.
I'm not saying they will be a jihadist, but they will support it if they are nudged out of their comfort zone of enjoying America and all that it offers, and ignoring what their own sacred scriptures tell them.
Maggie,
You are more than welcome to comment here any time. You are absolutely right. The Koran does advocate killing unbelievers.
I will re-enter the conversation later on, after I get home from class. Have a wonderful day!!:)
Thanks for pointing that out.
Maggie-
The Bible can be used to advocate some pretty horrid stuff, just as the Qur'an can. Just go read Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, or Joshua. Genocide and many other terrible things are 'advocated'- in some cases, commanded by God! Yet these passages are balanced out by other passages that speak of God's love and how we are supposed to live at peace.
It is the same with the Qur'an. While it never says that Allah loves them (a pretty severe oversight, in my opinion), it does tell them to make peace, and to live in peace with their neighbors. I can provide references if you so desire.
Your example can go both ways. Let's say we have an ordinary church, of a Christian denomination, in the same New York City. The preacher begins advocating violence against homosexuals or abortion doctors, citing different verses, and over time, his congregation may very well become radical and violent.
It is the way of people to skew things to fit their own views, and if they are violent, they'll find some way to justify it, regardless. The Qur'an is not inherently more violent (at least, not according to what I've read) than the Bible or any other holy book, and Islam is not an inherently more violent religion. It is merely a few men who take parts of the Qur'an and twist them that propagate violence.
@ Liberty,...but then came Jesus Christ and the history of Christianity started there, although foretold in the Old Testament.
The Koran advocates jihad, which is a holy mission, decided by a cleric or a warlord, or a young boy in Palestine needing money for his mamma, and so he dons the suicide belt.
In Islam, these people are praised and martyred as provided in the Koran.
In my opinion, there is nothing in Christianity to compare the two.
Maggie-
But my point was that you can still use the Bible to justify terrible things, and it has been used for such.
I'd like to ask you- have you read the Qur'an? I ask from curiosity because I myself am reading it, and haven't really found anything, so far, that is any more violent than my own Bible.
Jihad, literally translated, merely means 'struggle'. Don't know if you're familiar with Christian theology (not knowing your background), but this 'struggle' is traditionally defined as the 'struggle' many Christians say occurs between the 'Old Man' and the 'New Man' after salvation. That is a rough comparison, but one that is more apt than anything else.
There have always been radicals, in every culture. "Christians" used the Bible to justify things like the Inquisition, which was just as horrible as anything the jihadists have done. "Christians" used the Bible to justify killing thousands of Native Americans, which was definitely just as horrible as anything the jihadists have done.
And technically, Americans' vision of what 'jihad' is couldn't have existed before the twentieth century. That's when bombs were first invented. No bombs, no suicide belts.
@Liberty
The difference is that Christians and Christainity of today doesn't promote violence of any sort. Christianity condemns violence and not does not condone it when violence occurs. The Muslim faith is different. Islam does promote violence and condone it, all in the name of "Allah" or following "their God."
Christians respect other religions and do not want to annhilate people who believe in other religion just because of their existence whereas the Muslim extremists do promote the killing of people who believe in other faiths.
I don't know where I read or heard this but 12% of Muslims are terrorists/Jihadists and an additional 12% support the Muslim extremists efforts so there are more supporters of terrorism than you might have thought.
Teresa- I don't know, I've heard some pretty violent Christians. They say things like "Turn it all to glass!" or condone killing all the Muslims since they obviously "Won't repent and get saved." I've also heard Christians advocating violence against abortion doctors and even, in some cases, the women who get abortions! Yes, real nice and peaceful there.
Let me ask you the same thing I asked Maggie- have you read the Qur'an? Like I said, I myself am reading it, purely for curiosity reasons (like I read the Audacity of Hope and am reading Mein Kampf), and so far I'm in book 4 (al-Nisa'), I think, and haven't come across anything that's any more violent than what is in the Christian Bible. In fact, often, the Qur'an sounds quite like the Christian Bible. (No disrespect intended to my Bible, but the writing styles and phraseology are quite similar.)
Look at the keyword here. Muslim 'extremists'. It is only the radicals who want to do that- the same reason extremist Christians want to shoot down abortion doctors and kill homosexuals. And this is why those Muslim extremists are not indicative of the entirety of Islam.
"I don't know where I read or heard this but 12% of Muslims are terrorists/Jihadists and an additional 12% support the Muslim extremists efforts so there are more supporters of terrorism than you might have thought."
Doesn't sound likely to me, but I'll go with it.
Did it ever occur to you that our own actions have caused this support for the extremists? Our bombing of Yemen, our occupation of Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, our imperialist actions there over the past fifty years...I'm pretty sure they play a role in all that.
The violence in the Bible falls into two categories - stories or scenarios in the Bible that are history and not moral examples or commands for today's time, and laws that were binding for ancient Israel, not for us now. The Koran contains many violent commands for all Muslims, then, and now.
No, I haven't read the Koran but my husband has read both the Bible and Koran cover to cover and has been teaching me about the messages or commands that the Koran gives Muslims.
Actually, we have killed many Muslim extremists. The Muslim extremists would recruit more extremists regardless of how the U.S. handled its foreign policy affairs because of the violent commands within the Koran.
Those people who advocate for violence or claim to be promoting Christianity, are in fact going against Chistianity, and are not "true Christians." Didn't you see pro-life organizations come out and rebuke or condemn the killing Dr. George Tiller? (I can look on the internet and find Fr. Frank Pavone's and others response to that murder) Just because our law allows murders of innocent human beings doesn't make it right for another human to murder another human. Two wrongs don't make a right.
You're still missing the point about the Bible though. The point is that you can use the Bible to justify things. Regardless of NT vs. OT law, the differences there, or the applicability of either, you can still use it to justify violence.
"The Muslim extremists would recruit more extremists regardless of how the U.S. handled its foreign policy affairs because of the violent commands within the Koran."
So how do you explain that Muslim extremists were no problem for us before oh, about 1980, when we started meddling in affairs over there? Before that time, we had no problem with them. That was mostly because they didn't care about us; they were too busy infighting with other Muslim sects to bother with other religions. Things would have stayed like that if we hadn't gone and started sticking our nose in their business.
"Those people who advocate for violence or claim to be promoting Christianity, are in fact going against Chistianity, and are not "true Christians.""
According to most Muslims, those extremist Muslims are not true Muslims. The doublethink you have here is rather astounding- our radicals aren't really upholding our religion, but the only people who matter in their religion are the extremists.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38662
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=26285
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10022/1030132-109.stm
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881888600&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
@Teresa: Your last comment is perfect.
@Liberty, I've read large swathes of the Koran. I haven't even come close to reading it all. I've read the Bible cover to cover many times.
If I had never read a single verse of the Koran, I could figure out "the struggle" is against the infidel. That is the purpose of "the struggle." "The struggle" is not about putting food on a family's table" or good schools for the children. "The struggle" is to eliminate Jews first, and second, everyone else. "The struggle" is to dominate the earth.
Jihadi martyrs are sent sanctioned by Islam. Abortion doctor killers are not sanctioned by Christianity.
Are you talking about bombing Yemen in late 2009? We should have done it years ago. We should have done it after the bombing of our USS Cole.
What occupation are you talking about? America has never taken an inch of land for anything but to bury our soldiers. Yes, we are in Afghanistan and Iraq now, and we are leaving Iraq. We are leaving Iraq a better god-forsaken place than it was before, and most there, but the men who want extreme power through joining warlord groups admit that. My gosh, their children are going to school!
If you believe that our Freedom comes from God, that it is a right man cannot give, then you must believe that Muslim women are the most oppressed in the world, and why? Because of the Koran.
About Muslim extremists: Most Muslims are not extremists. Their holy book is extremist. Most Muslims will not have anything to do with jihad, until they have no choice, but they fund it through their mosques, whether they want to or not.
Check out the amount of American aid going to Muslims around the world? Weight "occupations" against extraordinary aid, which we also give as we "occupy." Do you realize that the Afghan and Iraqi governments want us there...now...not before, but now they need us, they want us. They want us to clean things up for them, spill our blood and treasure, build the roads Afghanistan has never had, the hospitals, the water systems, and then get out.
Do you think about the brutality of Muslim on Muslim - as Teresa's article laid out? Do you think about what the Koran says about women and girls?
The bottomline is, you think we are occupiers, and that we brought the wrath of Islam down upon our own heads. I do not believe that. You think al Qaeda and the Taliban are just small rogue groups. That's not my opinion. You think these groups have taken Islam out of context, that's not my opinion.
Liberty, it's been fun but I can see our conversation is going nowhere. If the view is that America is occupying Arab land, then we cannot surmount that.
These conversations are important. Thanks to the internet we can share our beliefs.
Teresa, thank you for hosting us:-)
@Liberty You stated, "Like I said, I myself am reading it, purely for curiosity reasons (like I read the Audacity of Hope and am reading Mein Kampf), and so far I'm in book 4 (al-Nisa'), I think, and haven't come across anything that's any more violent than what is in the Christian Bible. In fact, often, the Qur'an sounds quite like the Christian Bible. (No disrespect intended to my Bible, but the writing styles and phraseology are quite similar.)"
I did give credence to your point, the original point, that you claimed the Bible had the same type of language or wording that promoted violence just like the Koran does. That simply isn't true. I refuted your point and now you are switching gears instead of staying on the original subject. Don't make false accusations just because I refuted your point.
People can make justifactions for anything, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. That doesn't change the fact that the Koran makes violent commands for Muslims both for today's times and in the past. The Bible does not command any Christian person to go out and commit violence in today's times.
Muslims have caused trouble and wreaked havoc for years but it has been more in the forefront in the past 30 years.
@Maggie
Thank You very much for making some excellent points on this thread. I appreciate your comments very much. Have a great day!!:)
Maggie-
"
If I had never read a single verse of the Koran, I could figure out "the struggle" is against the infidel. That is the purpose of "the struggle.""
I find it strange that you could 'figure out' what the struggle meant when you hadn't even studied the subject. I explained what the consensus of most Muslim theologians and ordinary Muslims is- 'jihad' is the struggle between what your 'flesh' wants to do and what Allah wants you to do. (I'm using Christian terms in large part because I don't know the correct Muslim alternatives. :P ) The struggle is to become better so that eventually, one may enter Paradise.
"What occupation are you talking about? America has never taken an inch of land for anything but to bury our soldiers"
Oh no. We didn't take land. We just built bases and used their bases and kept our soldiers there for years and made sure they behaved and used their lands as staging areas for further invasions.
Not the same thing at all.
In Chapter 4 of the Qur'an, it deals with the women. According to the translation I am reading, women are allowed to hold property. Husbands are required, by Allah, to make sure their women have control over said property. Now, I will admit that women are mistreated in Muslim lands. But women were also mistreated in Christian lands because of the Bible.
Actually, no, the Afghans don't want us there. Of course, we seem to be talking about different things- the governments want us there because...um...we basically ARE the governments. The moment we leave is the moment the 'governments' in those countries begin to fall apart. Why? Because they have no wide public support, and they are weak militarily and politically. Why? Well, because the people there are unused to democracy/Republicanism. We cannot institute democracy merely because we conquered them.
I realize that Muslims are terrible to each other. I have acknowledged said fact. But I don't see how that's any of our business.
I've explained in great detail on my own blog (Teenage Politics) why I think our policy of invasion and occupation merely makes us shoot ourselves in the foot. If you'd like to read why, I suggest you head over there, because it's rather long. ;)
"I refuted your point and now you are switching gears instead of staying on the original subject. Don't make false accusations just because I refuted your point."
....I don't see how I switched gears. The Bible has commands from God in it that could be construed as commands to commit genocide. (Go read God's commands to wipe out every man, woman, and child in certain cities.) The Qur'an also commands violence. They are neither better nor worse than each other.
But let me clarify. I do believe in God, and I think my God is not the same as Allah. I believe Jesus is the only way to Heaven, and I wouldn't be backward about telling a Muslim so. But the argument that the Qur'an somehow promotes violence, and that Islam is inherently more violent than any other country is false.
"Muslims have caused trouble and wreaked havoc for years but it has been more in the forefront in the past 30 years."
It's been more in the forefront to us in the past 30 years...say...wait a minute...30 years ago...the Afghan-Soviet war. When we fed funds to the Mujahideen. And started meddling in their affairs.
Don't you love coincidences like that?
PS Maggie- thanks for debating with me! :)
@Liberty - nice to meet you Liberty:-)
@Liberty I meant to get back to you sooner than today- tests and health.
Muslims have been fighting wars for much more than 30 years, and that was part of my point. Muslims extremists attacked U.S. soldiers barracks in 1983 as they conducted peace operations in Lebanon. Then, there was the Barbary Pirates Wars or which threatened Christianity and from 11th to the beginning of the 19th Century. "Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, serving at the time as European Ministers, asked the ambassador from Tripoli why his government sanctioned such savagery. He replied that the Koran stated that non-Muslims were "sinners," and Muslims had a "...right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1242756/posts
This kind of rhetoric and beliefs in earlier history is the same kind of beliefs that Muslim extremists hold today. And, there have been many other wars perpetrated by Muslim extremists.
The United States does not cause other people's actions. Muslims have a choice, the choice is theirs to live peacefully with other religions across the globe or to go to war with us and others. It is quite apparent that Muslim extremists and their supporters which consist of 24 % of the Muslim population believe that they must conquer the world to have a caliphate like in previous history. It was the Muslim extremists choice to attack us throughout the years. They gave us NO choice but to defend this nation. That is a huge difference between Muslim extremists targeting innocent civilians and the United States targeting these Muslim extremists after being attacked on 9/11, which was in fact an act of war.
You did change gears. Its too bad you can't notice that.
Actually the Afghanis DO want us in Afghanistan. It is exactly that anti-American sentiment, the bias you are displaying presently, that Ralph Peters is referring to in his article. You are just following the left stream media who are promoting anti-American sentiment as to please their liberal friends all across the globe which is endangering the lives of our troops. Afghanis DO want our troops there. Afghanis do want help, the type of help we are giving them. We are helping them build up there infrastructure and saving them from the Taliban's tyranny that has been forced upon average Muslims for the past 3 or 4 decades. That is spreading FREEDOM. I will be writing a post on infrasructure projects in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Even people who think we should leave both Iraq and Afghanistan have stated that both our troops and others building up infrastructure have done good works in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Muslims extremists attacked U.S. soldiers barracks in 1983 as they conducted peace operations in Lebanon."
1983...let's see...where do we begin? The Afghan-Soviet War, where we quite willingly dedicated millions of dollars to help Gulbuddin Hekmatyar massacre his fellow Mujahideen. 1983...soon after we had justified the Israelis killing hundreds of Lebanese.
I'd also like to ask what kind of 'peace operation' uses guns? Wouldn't a more effective peace envoy consist of aid workers and ambassadors? Jus' saying.
"Then, there was the Barbary Pirates Wars or which threatened Christianity and from 11th to the beginning of the 19th Century."
Which, you must admit, we weren't exactly blameless in. I mean, the Europeans/Catholics could have handled the situation much better then oh, going and wantonly killing thousands of both Jews and Muslims! (Really, it's a wonder the Jews still talk to us. And it's no real surprise the Muslims won't after that debacle.)
No matter how you look at it, you must concede that there is fault on both sides. It takes two to have an arguement. The Muslims alone are not to blame for our bad relations, neither are we or the Christians or the Europeans. But I'm not going to gloss over our part in it just because it's inconvenient or uncomfortable for me to acknowledge it.
"The United States does not cause other people's actions."
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Saying our imperialist policies have nothing to do with the Muslim's actions is like saying that when you go steal your neighbor's TV and he comes and beats you up to get it back, your actions in no way influenced his.
"Muslims have a choice, the choice is theirs to live peacefully with other religions across the globe or to go to war with us and others."
And we have a choice to live peacefully with our global neighbors. Which, BTW, does include the Muslims. But we don't choose that. No, we have to have a finger in everybody else's pie.
Lest we forget, that is why the Roman Empire fell.
I'd like to know where you're getting your statistics. It sounds very unlikely to me that 24% of the world-wide Muslim population is either an extremist or pro-extremist. That's like saying 24% of professing Christians want to kill abortion doctors and homosexuals. Which I'm pretty sure isn't true. (Of course, it might. >.<)
"They gave us NO choice but to defend this nation. That is a huge difference between Muslim extremists targeting innocent civilians and the United States targeting these Muslim extremists after being attacked on 9/11, which was in fact an act of war."
How many times must I go over this?
We cannot attack a sovereign country because of the actions of an underground organization.
Doesn't work, hasn't worked, will never work.
"Actually the Afghanis DO want us in Afghanistan."
....
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24290.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/afgh-j14.shtml
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252
www.nytimes.com%252F2009%252F11%252F07%252Fworld%252Fasia%252F07doubts.html&h=17ac47f42d50ec74f355dad60b1ff505&ref=mf\
It is the GOVERNMENT that wants us there, as you yourself pointed out in your last comment.
Why? Because if we leave...they'll get overthrown. Why? Because the people...don't like them.
I mean, imagine that! People exercising freedom! But we can't have that. It might be inconvenient.
The Taliban is NOT an underground organization. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan and were aiding Al-Qaeda's terrorist efforts.
You stated,
"Saying our imperialist policies have nothing to do with the Muslim's actions is like saying that when you go steal your neighbor's TV and he comes and beats you up to get it back, your actions in no way influenced his."
So you think its okay for people to beat other people up and violate the law just to get even? Kinda like Al-Qaeda. No. Wrong is wrong.
The fact is both al-Qaeda and the Taliban are in the wrong and the United States is in the right. There is huge difference between the United States who is enagaging the enemy, killing the enemy and defending its national security interests and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban which specifically targets both Muslim and non-Muslim innocents. Al-Qaeda forced the tango, which you refuse to see.
Actually, the Muslims today and for the most part in the past have been in the wrong, and not the Christians. I will do a post on this.
That's right. For every action there is a reaction. Good point. That is exactly what happened after 9/11. The United States had every right to go into Afghnaistan due to the action called 9/11. The United States reacted to defend its citizens and its national security interests.
"The Taliban is NOT an underground organization. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan and were aiding Al-Qaeda's terrorist efforts."
They were that country's government. The underground organization I was speaking of was al Qaeda, which we went into Afghanistan after. We cannot attack an entire sovereign country without THEM having attacked us AS A COUNTRY.
"So you think its okay for people to beat other people up and violate the law just to get even? Kinda like Al-Qaeda. No. Wrong is wrong."
1. It was an analogy.
2. Yes, wrong is wrong. Which is why our killing of civilians is just as wrong as their killing of ours. And our torture is just as bad as theirs. And our actions are every bit as bad as theirs.
Wrong is wrong.
"The fact is both al-Qaeda and the Taliban are in the wrong and the United States is in the right."
Ah yes, America is NEVER wrong. EVER. This is called 'nationalism'. It's quite a wonderful thing, really. It enables people to be blind to their own faults, while loudly denouncing others. It's kind of the same thing most people practice for themselves. It's also something the Arabians use quite nicely- nationalism is rampant.
"That's right. For every action there is a reaction. Good point. That is exactly what happened after 9/11. The United States had every right to go into Afghanistan due to the action called 9/11. The United States reacted to defend its citizens and its national security interests."
It is a vicious cycle. This part's going to be a bit long, but please bear with me.
Some hundreds of years ago, someone on one side or the other precipitated a conflict. In fact, it probably began somewhere in Bible times- Shem, Ham and Japheth were respectively blessed and/or cursed by their father and thereby God. This set each brother/people at enmity with the others. Fast forward a few hundred years.
We have Abraham, and his two sons Ishmael and Isaac. This would later cause much suffering- which is, in reality, merely family infighting. Isaac was the true child of promise, Ishmael merely the product of Abraham's sin. But God blessed Ishmael by making him a people as well- commonly believed to be modern-day Arabians. Isaac also became a people- the Israelites.
The conflict between the half-brothers would go on for years- Ishmaelites would do something to the Israelites, the Israelites would respond with something equally terrible. Somewhere along the way, the Europeans got involved. The source of this is lost in the mists of time now, so trying to trace it is literally an exercise in futility.
But somewhere along the way, the cycle came to include Europeans/Caucasians. One side started it, the other side retaliated. So now it was a three-way power struggle. The Europeans sided with first the Arabians (Ishmaelites) and then the Jews (Israelites). During the Crusades, we were against both of them.
Then America broke away, adding yet another layer of complexity to the problem. Our history with the sons of Abraham has been even worse- we're on their side, then we're on the other, then we're on both, then we start over.
But the cycle of violence remained much the same, and continued to escalate- we do something, they do something, we do something, they do something...
At this point, like I said, the origins of this conflict are so far back that we don't know where it started. So both of us need to acknowledge fault. We're both at fault, because we've both been carrying on this conflict for years. And if we don't both stop it, grow up, and be adults, we're going to annihilate each other.
@Liberty,
NAZIS promoted an IDEOLOGY also and therefore with your logic we should have never gone into Germany and beyond to stop the NAZI IDEOLOGY. The Nazis did not attack us directly but Japan did at Pear Harbor.
Pear Harbor and The 9/11 Attacks are very much parallels. We must fight and stop the ideology being carried by both The Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
You are putting our enemy on the same footing as us, and that is wrong. I am sorry that you can't see that the United States has the moral highground in both these military actions much like we did in WWII.
Adults understand that our country has an obligation to defend itself from these terrorists. The terrorists have no right to target innocent civilians for revenge or to attack Christainity in order to attain a Muslim Caliphate, like they had in the past. An adult would see the plain fact that these terrorists DO NOT want to negotiate with us. They do not merely want us to leave them alone as you believe. That would not be enough for them. They are about conquering the world and ridding the world of "infidels" - Christians, who they believe are sinners and they refuse to live peacefully amongst all religions.
Those are Bible stories meant to teach a lesson and that's it.
The fact that you think there are as many violent Christians as violent Muslims is absurd when the reality clearly shows differently.
But, Let's agree to disagree.
I have explained the differences between the Nazis and al Qaeda/Taliban before, but I will do so again. The Nazis were a legally elected political party. It's sort of like how if someone were to declare war on us (the US) right now, they wouldn't declare war on our majority party, the Democrats, they would declare war on the nation.
Same deal. How we got into that conflict was simple- or perhaps not, since the due process of law was followed. Japan attacked us on Pearl Harbor, followed by a declaration of war towards them on our part. Japan summarily declared war on us, and Germany came to her aid as one of her allies. We then declared war on Germany. Quite straight-forward, not to mention Constitutional. Unfortunately, said process of law was not followed in either the Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts. Bush took advantage of a loophole law passed just before Korea I believe it was, that allowed the President to unilaterally send troops wherever he pleased in the world.
So you see, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are in no way similar. Pearl Harbor was carried out by a governmental entity, a country. 9/11 was instigated by an underground organization that, by its very definition, is not susceptible to war-waging.
"You are putting our enemy on the same footing as us, and that is wrong. I am sorry that you can't see that the United States has the moral highground in both these military actions much like we did in WWII."
I do fail to see that, and you fail to explain WHY we have the moral high ground, so I don't see why I should see that.
"Adults understand that our country has an obligation to defend itself from these terrorists."
Despite your slam on my age, I do see that. But the way we went about 'defending' ourselves (which was more like an offensive move) was wrong. I explained on my blog post "The War on Terror" what I thought we should have done, and what we Constitutionally could have done.
I don't know what history book you're studying, but the Muslims have never had a pure Muslim caliphate. Ever. They've always been too busy fighting amongst themselves. The closest they ever came was when they managed to take over Spain, but even that was short-lived.
"An adult would see the plain fact that these terrorists DO NOT want to negotiate with us. They do not merely want us to leave them alone as you believe."
Wow. You must be telepathic, you have such an insight into what the terrorists want and don't want.
"Those are Bible stories meant to teach a lesson and that's it."
I don't see how that answered my argument. My argument was that there has been a cycle of violence going on for years, both sides need to acknowledge their faults, and grow up and move on. Don't think our actions from about 1850 onward are Bible stories. ;)
"The fact that you think there are as many violent Christians as violent Muslims is absurd when the reality clearly shows differently."
I can't count the number of times I've heard Christians say things like "Turn it all to glass!" (speaking of the Middle East), or "Just kill them all, since they won't get saved!", or "Abortion doctors should be hanged!" or "Women who get abortions should be killed themselves!" or "Homosexuals deserve death!" For starters, that doesn't seem like a very Christian attitude to me. For another thing, it doesn't strike me as very peaceful.
But, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. ;)
@Liberty
We are not genetic descendants of Israelites. We are only spiritual descendants because of Jesus Christ.
With your logic, any organization that is NOT recognized or sponsored by a particular country can do anything or attack the United States at any time, do anything against a country's people or against any other country without any consequences or repercussions. That is absurd. According to you we have no right to defend ourselves against Muslim extremists. Plus, The United Nations authorized us to go into Afganistan and we have the full support of Afghanistan's leader, Karzai. We are not going against Afghanistan as you claim, but rather the terrorists who are carrying the ideology promoting a Muslim Caliphate.
Yes, If you read your history books there have been at least a few Muslim Caliphates founded. "Pure" is the distinction you made, not mine. A person could claim that nothing in our present or past societies has ever been pure. "Pure" is a cop out.
Both the Iraq and Afghanistan military conflicts are in fact consititutional. They were both authorized by Congress. That is what makes them legitimate operations. The fact that you disagree with the wars does not mitigate the fact, that these two military engagements are constitutional due to the Congress authorizing and giving their consent for the miliatry operations to ocurr.
"We're both at fault, because we've both been carrying on this conflict for years. And if we don't both stop it, grow up, and be adults, we're going to annihilate each other."
When Muslim extremists force their brutality time and time again, and murder innocents time and time again, repeatedly attack us over a period of hundreds of years, and commit these offenses against both innocent civilians and our military, than yes, we have the moral high ground, and they don't. We have every right to defend ourselves when being continuously attacked time and time again.
You are the one who first mentioned adults in the conversation so I was just counteracting your thoughts on being an adult.
Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are so parallels. They have one very important thing in common-- They were attacks on our soil. They were both acts of war. They both used planes to kill Americans. We have every right to defend ourself against any set of persons who attack us regardless of whether a country sponsors them or not.
Per my discretion- This will be the last comment on this thread.
It was a good and lovely discussion.
Post a Comment